PawPaw wrote:a Euro chick wearing something on their head in winter....go figure....so that blows the 'not going to ride cos a helmet messes up my hair' codswallop....cos they'd be wearing the same thing on their head when walking....brouhahahaha....or do they refuse to walk in the winter too hahaha.

So everyone wears beanies at all times during winter in Europe? Would it therefore be OK to make them mandatory? Of course not....there is even someone in the background of your own photo wearing nothing on their head.

You are contributing absolutely nothing intelligent to this discussion.

lturner wrote:So everyone wears beanies at all times during winter in Europe? Would it therefore be OK to make them mandatory? Of course not....there is even someone in the background of your own photo wearing nothing on their head.

You are contributing absolutely nothing intelligent to this discussion.

CONTENT DELETED

Mod Says: Thin Ice Paw Paw, arguing your case doesn't mean insulting others and question their integrity and character, this is flaming. Your are entitled to your views, others are entitled to their views and it is completely acceptable to disagree and leave it at that.

so there's nothing said in the above posts that insults me or questions my integrity and character hey Mod?

Last edited by PawPaw on Wed Sep 26, 2012 10:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

human909 wrote:But I'm not sure what your point here is or how it relates to the argument.

There is no reason except the argument itself. Pity that it in no way resembles an argument. Apparently these "arguments" have also "outed" me as another one of these h8terz. Odd, as I've never made my opposition to MHLs a secret, nor my support for wearing them whenever the perceived risk rises above minimal.

Incoming wibble in 5...4...3...

...whatever the road rules, self-preservation is the absolute priority for a cyclist when mixing it with motorised traffic.London Boy 29/12/2011

The 2nd Womble wrote:There are actually a few of those claims in this thread MB

NO benefit Dave? As in "You might as well wear half a watermelon for all the good it will do"?

Challenge extended. If you can find me just two references in this thread, I will withdraw from participation forever and you have my sworn word that I will never nude nut again.

Shaun

"You'd be far safer ditching the helmet during the day and wearing a wide brimmed hat in summer....."

"I'm about to bin this excuse for head protection, but it has made me wonder just how many unsuspecting riders there are out there wearing a helmet in the mistaken belief it will actually protect their head in a fall."

In my 'EXPERT' opinion the helmet would offer no protection for the cyclist at all.

Bicycle advocates for abolishing mandatory helmets: (from left) Raquel Fajardo, Mark Van-delft, Arwen Birch and Peng Au-Yong. Photo: Wayne TaylorVICTORIA was first in the world to make bike helmets compulsory, but now a small but determined group of cyclists want to ride like it's 1989. Bareheaded.

The Freestyle Cyclists, with fewer than a dozen core members but hundreds of supporters, are planning an act of civil disobedience next month with a helmet-free ride along Merri Creek. The group's petition has attracted more than 600 signatures, calling for bike helmets to be made optional in Australia and New Zealand.

The group's spokesman, Alan Todd, said helmets gave cyclists a false sense of security and provided only limited protection in an accident.

Before the ride on October 6, supporters will gather at CERES Community Environment Park in East Brunswick to hear from Chris Rissel, a professor of public health at the University of Sydney.

AdvertisementHe says mountain bikers and others are capable of deciding for themselves what kind of cycling requires a helmet.

''It's hurting the people who might ride but don't,'' he said, ''and they are exactly the people we want to get more active.''

Raquel Fajardo, 27, just wants to feel the wind in her hair. She wears a helmet only to avoid a fine and says making helmets optional would help cycling shed its dangerous image.

Helmets became compulsory in Victoria on July 1, 1990, and cyclists without a helmet today risk a $176 fine.

VicRoads' director of road user safety, James Holgate, said a 1999 review found helmets reduced head and brain injuries by 88 per cent and injuries to upper and mid-facial areas by 65 per cent.

''Helmets are designed so that the foam material they are made from spreads the force of an impact and absorbs the energy, greatly reducing the risk and severity of head injury in the instance of a crash,'' he said.

The head of neurosurgery at The Alfred hospital, Professor Jeffrey Rosenfeld, said dumping compulsory helmets would be a retrograde step.

''I'm the one who sits at the hospital looking after the victims of road trauma,'' he said. ''There are many cyclists among them, and I can't help but think that if they weren't wearing helmets their injuries would be significantly worse.'' He said the idea that compulsory helmets dissuaded people from healthy exercise was ''specious'' and he called the October 6 ride a publicity stunt and a bad example.

Several studies were pending on the effectiveness of helmets in preventing more subtle brain injuries, but they indisputably protected the skull in an accident.

However, a study published last year by Norway's Institute of Transport Economics found previous research had been biased towards older stack-hats and that modern soft-shell helmets offered less protection.

City of Yarra councillor Jackie Fristacky, who will attend the rally but will not ride for fear of a fine, said mandatory helmets were largely to blame for the sluggish take-up of Melbourne's public bike scheme.

She said in Dublin and Montreal helmets remained obligatory on the outskirts but not in the centre where speed limits were usually lower. Figures from the Transport Accident Commission show that in the past decade 57 cyclists were killed in Melbourne, compared with 40 in rural Victoria.

Victoria Police were aware of the planned helmet-free ride. A spokesman said police respected people's right to protest lawfully but would monitor the situation, taking action ''when appropriate''.

DavidS wrote:PawPaw, serious question: why are you so obsessed with making us all wear helmets? Repealing MHLs doesn't stop you wearing a helmet, why do you want to force your beliefs on to the rest of us?

DS

Why do you and others let your emotive, irrational, and poor grip on the literature in this field think it is ok to insult me?

Why can't you people see that only removing MHL is not going to give us the cycling Nirvana of Amsterdam? I've constantly said I think we need the infrastructure and motorist culture of Europe before we adjust helmet legislation.But your side cannot see that. You rabbit on with all the bias expressed at helmetfreedom, and choose not to read studies and opinions expressed by University of NSW academics who work in the field full time. None of your side can name the top Australia researchers and academics in this debate, nor the criticisms they've levelled at each other. You just all parrot the same twisted dubious views over and over.

One of the key tenents of MHL haters is that helmets alone stop a lot of people from riding. You then fabricate that into all these people being obese and costing the health care system billions of dollars. When I point out bizarre and sloppy logic like this, I get puerile responses like "what does it matter what excuses people use not to ride" and " what's helmet hair got to do with MHL?" Why do I have to remind your side what your key tenents are?

Maybe the issue is, I've read helmet freedom exhaustively. But I've also read a lot of other stuff, presumably more than those who hate MHL, from both sides of the argument. It is very very obvious the people who have called me a nut job, troll, flamer, and otherwise insulted me have not read what I have. If you had, you' d realize like me that it is a ridiculous argument to repeal MHL BEFORE adding appropriate infrastructure and changing motorist culture. The argument to use nude nuts to change motorist behavior and encourage more people to cycling is irrational and entrenched in fantasy.

Some think I am flaming by pointing out that Euros don't have an issue wearing things on their head when the weather is cold. The reason I point this out is because MHL haters think more people would cycle if they didn't get their hair messed up. Some cannot see the logical link between Euros messing their hair up with head warming gear, and helmet wearing. Do the haters think Australian women are somehow more precious about their hair than Euro chicks? Even if Australia repealed MHL, with our harsh sunlight, it is most likely hair precious people would have to wear hats suitable for cycling = tight fitting caps that mess up hair....So this core pillar of MHL hating is just more sloppy logic and ill informed extrapolation.

PawPaw wrote:Why can't you people see that only removing MHL is not going to give us the cycling Nirvana of Amsterdam? I've constantly said I think we need the infrastructure and motorist culture of Europe before we adjust helmet legislation.But your side cannot see that. You rabbit on with all the bias expressed at helmetfreedom, and choose not to read studies and opinions expressed by University of NSW academics who work in the field full time. None of your side can name the top Australia researchers and academics in this debate, nor the criticisms they've levelled at each other. You just all parrot the same twisted dubious views over and over.

One of the key tenents of MHL haters is that helmets alone stop a lot of people from riding. You then fabricate that into all these people being obese and costing the health care system billions of dollars. When I point out bizarre and sloppy logic like this, I get puerile responses like "what does it matter what excuses people use not to ride" and " what's helmet hair got to do with MHL?" Why do I have to remind your side what your key tenents are?

Maybe the issue is, I've read helmet freedom exhaustively. But I've also read a lot of other stuff, presumably more than those who hate MHL, from both sides of the argument. It is very very obvious the people who have called me a nut job, troll, flamer, and otherwise insulted me have not read what I have. If you had, you' d realize like me that it is a ridiculous argument to repeal MHL BEFORE adding appropriate infrastructure and changing motorist culture. The argument to use nude nuts to change motorist behavior and encourage more people to cycling is irrational and entrenched in fantasy.

Some think I am flaming by pointing out that Euros don't have an issue wearing things on their head when the weather is cold. The reason I point this out is because MHL haters think more people would cycle if they didn't get their hair messed up. Some cannot see the logical link between Euros messing their hair up with head warming gear, and helmet wearing. Do the haters think Australian women are somehow more precious about their hair than Euro chicks? Even if Australia repealed MHL, with our harsh sunlight, it is most likely hair precious people would have to wear hats suitable for cycling = tight fitting caps that mess up hair....So this core pillar of MHL hating is just more sloppy logic and ill informed extrapolation.

As usual Paw Paw, you modus operandi when arguing is to exaggerate or fabricate a position held by those against MHLs and then rebut it.

Mod Says: As previously noted, using Hater as a term for anyone who disagrees is not appropriate. We are entitled our own opinions and views, but so are others and if topics are argued in a mature and intelligent manner then is this the essence of the forum.

Reacting to the tragedy, which occurred within hours of Wiggins' time trial victory, the Tour de France winner said he believed cyclists would be offered better protection if it was illegal to ride without one, "because ultimately, if you get knocked off and you ain't got a helmet on, then how can you kind of argue".

I'd love to be there but can't make it down to Melbourne that weekend sadly. By the way, I am certain anyone would be welcome to join the ride whether they ride with or without a helmet. That is the whole point: choice. Even people who would prefer to ride without a helmet but do so to avoid a fine, that is perfectly understandable.

lturner wrote:I'd love to be there but can't make it down to Melbourne that weekend sadly. By the way, I am certain anyone would be welcome to join the ride whether they ride with or without a helmet. That is the whole point: choice. Even people who would prefer to ride without a helmet but do so to avoid a fine, that is perfectly understandable.

Reacting to the tragedy, which occurred within hours of Wiggins' time trial victory, the Tour de France winner said he believed cyclists would be offered better protection if it was illegal to ride without one, "because ultimately, if you get knocked off and you ain't got a helmet on, then how can you kind of argue".

This really just highlights the hypocrisy and stupidity of Wiggins' comments.

Perhaps he should consider whether Australian cyclists are "offered better protection" because it is illegal to ride without a helmet.

although he later did some back-pedalling on that, i think he has a point. we (cyclists) insist on motorists showing us due care on the roads, yet they observe us taking unnecessary risks - including (but not restricted to) choosing to not wear a helmet.

a pet peeve of mine is black cycling apparel. it's very popular and research into its impact on conspicuity is conclusive - it doesn't help. i've had a motorist pull up next to my group and give friendly advice to one of them that his black gear was hard to see - this motorist wasn't having a go, he was genuinely concerned enough to stop and point it out. the prevailing attitude appears to be "the onus is on motorists to see me and i am entitled to make it as hard for them as i please". this may sound defiant on a cycling discussion forum, but i'm fairly certain it doesn't help us much out on the roads.

jules21 wrote:although he later did some back-pedalling on that, i think he has a point. we (cyclists) insist on motorists showing us due care on the roads, yet they observe us taking unnecessary risks - including (but not restricted to) choosing to not wear a helmet.

I don't think he has a point at all. Have helmet laws improved the attitude of motorists here? Are motorist attitude worse in Europe where there are no helmet laws?